Michel Bellehumeur

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

In a previous life.

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

No.

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather strange to listen to what the member has to say

now that he is on the government side. All the same, his approach is a little better, in the sense that he uses new words.

He talks about innovation, discrimination, savings and backlogs. It is strange because in the speech he made in 1991-I was reading it as he was talking-he never spoke of innovation. He never spoke of discrimination. If discrimination was one of his primary arguments in 1991, he should have mentioned it then. But no, it is nowhere to be seen. The clincher he made at the time was that it went against tradition, that we never had proceeded this way, that it was unparliamentary. That is what he was saying then.

He raised all sorts of extremely important questions. Now that he is a member of the government, he no longer raises them. He has changed his tune. Such an about-face on such a fundamental question as prorogation is dreadful.

He talked about savings. If the government had negotiated with the official opposition, there would have been unanimous consent regarding some bills. We would have agreed to keep some bills on the Order Paper for consideration during this session. But we would not have agreed to keep bills like the one on unemployment insurance. We want a new bill. Canadians are protesting. This bill does not please them. But the government does not care, it is washing its hands of the whole mess, and everything is thrown in together and presented to Canadians. Hey, we are the government, we are in power.

That is why we are against this motion.

It is impossible to proceed this way under the current system.

I conclude with a question that the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell asked the Conservative government in 1991, in identical circumstances. Perhaps he will say the circumstances were not the same. The difference is that the motion was brought in by a Conservative member at that time whereas now it is being put forward by the Liberals. But, basically, it is exactly the same thing.

I ask the member to answer the same question he asked the government in 1991, that is: "If the motion is accepted in its present wording-I ask question rhetorically-if one can resuscitate five bills with this motion, or four bills, what stops one from resuscitating all legislation from the past?"

If the government can resuscitate all the bills from the previous session, what will prevent it from going further, if it wishes so, and reinstating bills which died on the Order Paper in previous Parliaments? What prevents it from deciding that today is the third reading for such and such a bill, and that this is so because it holds a majority of seats? What would stop the government from acting in that way?

In the end, does the motion they want to us to agree to today in the House of Commons not simply cancel any effect of prorogation, of Royal Assent and of the whole tradition of the House? I

would like to hear what the member has to say on these critical questions, to see just how far he is willing to go in making a fool of himself.

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

We read about it in the Hill Times .

[Partnership, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

We gather from the throne speech that the Liberal government has finally understood that the way to go, for Canada, is the way of dialogue and, in particular, partnership with Quebec.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognize that the only real partnership, the viable and working partnership between Canada and Quebec, is a partnership between two peoples?

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

This is interesting, indeed, especially coming from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, whom I quoted earlier and who, at the time, had risen to condemn the Conservative government's motion. I see that he is here and that is listening carefully to what I have to say. He is nodding that it is the case. He agrees with me. I hope that he will rise in this House and muster the courage to condemn his government and say: "Look, we are making a mistake". I hope he does that. I hope he has the decency to do so, because it is indeed a matter of decency.

In 1991, the Liberals were right-yes, you heard me correctly, Mr. Speaker-to be infuriated by the process that the Conservative government was trying to impose in this House. The Liberals were convinced they were right in 1991, and they showed it very clearly to the Speaker. They pleaded their case on several occasions and they voted against the motion. Therefore, if they were right in 1991, how can they now table a motion that is even worse than that of the Conservatives?

Should this motion be adopted, it would have major repercussions on the traditions and practices of this House, but also on the democratic system as a whole, on the values that we Quebecers hold dear and on the values that you, as Canadians, hold dear, and on democracy. Such would be the consequences of adopting the Liberal motion now before us. Let us be clear. Political parties in this House cannot keep changing established practices, setting precedents and doing as they please just because they hold the majority, without jeopardizing democracy. They cannot always bend the rules. Nor should they try to get too much mileage out of some precedents. Speakers in this House may, at times, have made

mistakes. They may have given too wide an interpretation of certain principles. This is not the way to make law and jurisprudence any better: it only generates anarchy in this House.

The motion before us today is totally unacceptable in terms of its content, form and goal. Let me elaborate on each of these three points.

By its very content, as I have already said, Motion No. 1, the first motion tabled by the government in this session, more or less gives ministers the discretion to rise anytime during the first 30 days of the second session of the 35th Parliament and say "Now, this is such an important a bill that it must be reinstated exactly where it was in the previous session". The motion the government would like to see adopted as the rule for this House confers unwholesome discretionary powers and is unacceptable.

The same applies to its form. They have not even taken the trouble to go into any detail. I have just heard the government leader listing all of the bills that have died on the Order Paper which it would be important to reinstate this session. They cannot be so important as to eradicate all precedent in this House.

Some, no doubt, are more important than others. Where does the government stand with respect to all those bills? What was it up to before prorogation if all those bills were so vital? I believe that the government ought to have shown good faith by making a selection, provided there is any good faith on the other side, but I doubt it. I was trying to comply with the rule of law which states that good faith is to be presumed. If so, I guess there are some four or five bills that are more important and it could have listed them. And even before that, it could have taken the precaution of seeing they were passed before prorogation. But, when one does not know where one is going- We will give the government the benefit of the doubt, but there are four or five bills that could have been specified and that was not done.

The most important point is the objective of the motion, and that is unacceptable. The objective is to block democracy, and to block our growing opposition to certain of those bills. It is to block the opposition taxpayers are organizing against those bills. It is to push through their passage with undue haste. It is to thumb one's nose at tradition. It is to attempt to manipulate public opinion and, particularly, to deprive the members of this House of their right to make decisions on these bills.

We knew that the government, and the Prime Minister in particular, had lost control. We knew that the Prime Minister had lost control of his cabinet, that we have evidence of daily. We knew he had even lost control over his own actions, and today this government wants us to be sucked into the same loss of control, because it has lost control over its legislative agenda through its own fault. No, that will not do. The official opposition refuses to get on side with the government, refuses to support the government's intent to have this motion adopted.

If we strip prorogation of its meaning and consequences, we pay a price. If, despite all, Mr. Speaker, you decide to allow the government motion and go along with this formula for avoiding the consequences of proroguing a session, I would like to propose an amendment to the government's Motion No. 1. I move, seconded by my colleague for Joliette:

That the motion be amended by adding at the end of the first paragraph, after the word "prorogation", the following:

"except when a Member states on a point of order his of her opposition to the Bill whose reinstatement is being proposed, in which case first reading of the said Bill shall be moved and it shall be debated like any other new measure introduced in the House by the government".

That is the amendment the official opposition proposes.

In closing, I know that common sense, justice and parliamentary fairness will be reflected in your ruling.

As I said at the start of the debate, if you believe in all good conscience that, by making a ruling that could, at first glance, go against the 1991 ruling on a similar motion, be aware that the Supreme Court of Canada in certain instances has felt the need to adjust things to the point of rendering inconsistent decisions.

I think you have the power to do so as well, to make adjustments, to put the pieces of the puzzle back in the right place and to identify and clarify the customs and traditions of this House. I think you also have the right and the obligation to do so, because the government seems to have totally eliminated common sense and fairness from this House.

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

I see that the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is here. I hope he will rise to denounce his government for the way it is proceeding. I am going to tell you what he said in 1991 when he was sitting on our side of the House. You are smiling, Mr. Speaker, because you can surely remember it.

The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell had carefully reviewed all the consequences of prorogation. He said he feared the kind of precedents such a motion would create, and what it would mean if the Speaker accepted the motion put forward by the Conservative government. He said he was afraid it could resuscitate any bill. I will even give you a specific quote from this great law expert. "Finally, if this precedent is allowed to proceed, then what is next? I ask the question rhetorically. If one can resuscitate five bills with this motion, or four bills, what stops one from resuscitating all legislation from the past?" He even waxed poetic. Indeed, what would keep the government from adopting another motion whereby all bills before the House are deemed to have reached third reading? "What stops us from resuscitating a bill from 1977, saying that that particular bill has now reached third reading, and we are going to vote on it right now? As a matter of fact, we could actually pass a motion stating it has completed third reading debate".

If I interpret his words correctly-because he is so poetical at times that it is difficult to understand what he meant-had the government motion been ruled in order by the Speaker in 1991, the government could have done just about anything thereafter. It could have taken a bill that died on the Order Paper in 1970, brought it back and considered that the bill was at third reading. "Hey, there. We have decided to pass this bill; we have a majority in this House". That is what he meant.

He went on to say, and this is really good: "What we are in fact doing is amending completely the rules of the House by adopting this motion, were we to do so, or were this motion to be ruled in order". For once, I must say that I agree with him. "The implications of ruling this motion in order would be such that I fear we could render-if a government wanted to, and I am not saying it does-this House of Commons totally irrelevant and redundant. Render this House of Commons totally irrelevant and redundant? I hope this rings a bell. I hope that the hon. member will rise in this House and condemn his government's first motion, saying: "Listen, the government made a mistake. We cannot go back on our word. That is the position we took in 1991". I do not know if certain members opposite have Alzheimer's disease, but they seem to have forgotten what they did in the past. I have many more quotes.

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

I do not know whether or not he is sleeping in the other House, but he is not here now.

After examining and analyzing the effects of prorogation, he quoted Beauchesne and other legal experts. He came to that conclusion after careful consideration. I will quote from his speech because it deserves to be read, even if it is a little long. I think people have a right to know what today's senator was saying when he was in opposition.

He said this: "I now oppose-being presented with this jumble of legislation, some of which we seriously oppose and some of which we have agreed to. I cannot understand why this government, these government bullies now want to impose their will on the House of Commons through force of numbers".

He went on to say once again: "There are good arguments that the government has no business proceeding as it is doing and that it is contrary to parliamentary reform and all political decency". He concluded by saying: "I think that is bad management, bad policy and, in my opinion, unparliamentary".

The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell-

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to speak to this motion and especially to present my arguments to someone like you, Mr. Speaker, who has a great deal of experience as both a lawyer and a member of this House. Moreover, you lived through that whole period in 1991 when members of this government were sitting on opposition benches and singing a very different tune.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it gave you an opportunity to assess the opposition's arguments to the government then in office and today I am sure that they will recognize some of what I will be saying regarding the first motion tabled by the government in this session.

I can tell you that there is nothing reassuring in this motion for the opposition, and more particularly for Canadian democracy. They want us to support the kind of motion presented today as if it were a routine matter.

According to the government House leader, this is a routine motion intended to provide a framework for effective management, as though Parliament did not already have a framework. I am going to show you that Parliament already has a framework, a tradition, which this government wants to bypass this morning by tabling this motion.

This is an exceptional case. On February 2, 1996, the government decided to prorogue Parliament, with full knowledge of the facts, including the consequences of prorogation. Should this motion be adopted today, it will mark the end-and I am weighing my words carefully-of the value, principles and effect of prorogation in this Parliament.

We should perhaps determine what prorogation means. What is the effect of prorogation? We as members of the House are used to this kind of language; we know what it means. Some people, however, may not know what prorogation means or how it can impact on Parliament.

Since I do not want to quote myself, I will quote law experts, people with a great deal of experience in this area who have written at length on the subject. According to citation 235 in the sixth edition of Beauchesne:

The effect of a prorogation is at once to suspend all business until Parliament shall be summoned again. Not only are the sittings of Parliament at an end, but all proceedings pending at the time are quashed. Every bill must therefore be renewed after a prorogation, as if it were introduced for the first time.

As an effect of prorogation, it is rather important.

In the fourth edition of his book, on pages 102 and 103 of the French version, Bourinot is even more explicit:

The legal effect of a prorogation is to conclude a session; by which all bills and other proceedings of a legislative character-in whatever state they are at the time, are entirely terminated, and must be commenced anew, in the next session, precisely as if they had never been begun.

This is important. At page 137 of his 1993 book entitled The House of Commons at Work -you know, the reference material newly elected members are given to acquaint themselves with the operation of this House-your predecessor, the hon. John A. Fraser, whom you knew, says:

Proroguing a session does not dissolve Parliament, but it does have a similar effect-

He is going very far.

-on the business before the House.

He then says:

All current business is abandoned, committees cease their activities, and bills die.

As you can see, over the years, prorogation has always been construed this way. I will come back to 1991 later. For the moment, while Mr. Fraser had decided a certain way in 1991, he took a slightly different stance in his book, in 1993, and I will tell you why in a moment.

Over the years, custom and tradition have shaped the meaning of "prorogation". We have before us a government that claims to be respectful of the system and is trying, through this motion, to strip a parliamentary principle of any real meaning.

This motion is unacceptable in that it disrespectfully circumvents the established legislative process and raises political interference to new heights.

With this motion, proroguing a session would not mean anything any more, except a chance for the government to pay a visit to the other House, waking up a number of senators who are asleep-that

is the bright side-and spend the rest of the day enjoying a big bash at Rideau Hall, at the taxpayers' expense naturally.

The government is trying to make us swallow a principle that is trend setting and unacceptable, under our current system.

When one reads the motion, one realizes that, deny it as they may, it says exactly the same thing as the 1991 motion. Of course, this motion having been moved by the Liberals, it cannot be identical to the one put forward by the Conservatives. But it is identical. In fact, it is just worse.

What does the government motion say? It says, in essence:

That-whenever a minister of the Crown, when proposing a motion for first reading of a bill states that the said bill is in the same form as a government bill at the time of prorogation of the first session-the said bill-shall stand, if necessary, on the Order Paper, or, as the case may be, referred to committee, at the same stage and under the same legislative procedural process at which it stood at the time of prorogation;

Basically, under this motion, while the government may have prorogued the session, there is no actual prorogation. "We can do as we wish, we are in power. So let us go, we are the government". But the Liberals are doing so in a way that they condemned when they sat on the other side of the House.

If the government wanted to prorogue a session, it had to live with the consequences of its decision. It did not have to prorogue the House. Who calls a prorogation? The Prime Minister. He is the one who decides to prorogue the session or not. He does not have to do it. Why did he do it, knowing full well what the consequences would be? If there is a problem, as the government House leader said earlier in his speech when he stated that this motion seeks to bring a solution to a current problem, that problem was brought about by the Liberals. Must they now invoke their own turpitude to find a solution? I believe the Liberals are responsible for the situation that currently prevails in this House.

I doubt that the legislative agenda for the first session was too heavy, since the issues that we discussed here led us to conclude that the government did not have much to propose. It kept putting off all the important legislation because Quebec was holding a referendum. The government did not want to displease anyone; consequently, it kept putting off the really important bills.

The UI bill was controversial; consequently, the government had to manoeuvre carefully. It postponed introduction of that bill. The result is that the government prorogued Parliament when these bills had not yet been passed. Is that the opposition's fault? Is that the fault of our democratic system? No, it is the Liberals' fault. Why did they choose to go that route?

If this government were serious and had a clear legislative vision, we would not be debating such a motion, because the government would have passed the bills that it deemed important, before deciding to prorogue Parliament. The government's way of doing things makes me wonder.

Could it be that we have in front of us a government that does not know where it is going? I think we can rightly ask ourselves that question. Or could it be that we have in front of us a government that does not care at all about Parliament and would rather run the show-Mr. Speaker, I apologize for using that expression-like an autocrat? This is also a question that we can ask ourselves.

Indeed, acting in this fashion and trying to use some procedural trick that one would expect on the TV show Les Parlementeries , so as to circumvent a clear and well established principle, can only be done by a government that rules and manages the country's business with arbitrary and absolute authority. The government claims to know what is best, and that is it. It often displays this attitude, as evidenced by this motion.

I know that, in order to justify such undemocratic behaviour, the government will refer to a so-called precedent dating back to May 29, 1991. I am getting to it now. The government will try to find differences between what was done in 1991 and what is being done now and it will say: "We are not proceeding in the same way. We are much more open. It is much more transparent in this case". We heard the government House leader earlier.

But let me tell the House: there is no difference. Even if there is, the motion before us today is worse than the one tabled in 1991.

It might be worthwhile reviewing what happened in 1991 for those who are not aware of the details. The motion tabled by the government of the time, the Mulroney Government, was to reinstate six bills that had died on the Order Paper as the result of prorogation.

The government tabled a motion clearly indicating the bills it wanted reinstated, the stages they had reached and at what stages they wanted them to be after the motion was adopted.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will recall that the Liberals were up in arms over this move by the Conservatives, accusing them of having committed just about every sin in the book, at least every one of the seven deadly sins, and stating that this motion represented a denial of the legislative process of this House. In that instance, however, six very specific bills were involved. The ones they wanted reinstated were listed specifically, whereas this time anybody can get up and say "This bill is at the same stage as it was

at the end of the session", and we start up where we left off, as if nothing has happened.

I am going to refer to some portions of the speeches made by the Liberals of the time. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will find this amusing, because it will bring back to you what those Liberals had to say on an identical motion.

The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond said: "I contend that the motion is in principle unacceptable in that it seeks to circumvent, indeed to subvert, the normal legislative process of this House. In the past this kind of thing has been done only by unanimous consent. Now the government is seeking to establish an ominous precedent by attempting to force this procedure on the House. This is an offensive and dangerous departure from the practices of all parliamentary bodies and the Chair is, I believe in accordance with Beauchesne's citation 123.(1) and Standing Order 1, required to refuse to put the motion because of its unprecedented violation of the checks and balances written into the rules governing the normal legislative process."

That speaker is now a government minister, and I am dying to hear what he has to say. I hope he will rise and say that what his government is doing makes no sense, because the procedure is the same as the one before us today.

Another member who rises frequently in the House, or at least who rose frequently in the House, the member for Kingston and the Islands said: "What is happening today is unprecedented in that the government is moving a motion under Government Orders for debate to reinstate bills in this session. I have searched precedents back to 1938 and did not find one where a motion of this kind was moved for debate. It was always agreed to by unanimous consent. Never before has a government moved to suspend the rules in effect and put bills back into their position at the time of prorogation of a session".

His comments become even more significant: "If royal prerogative is to meaning anything, the prorogation ended those bills. They have to be reinstated in the usual course, but they ought to have been introduced and dealt with as new bills in this session. That is proper procedure in the absence of unanimous consent".

Further on, to really impress the Speaker at the conclusion of his speech he said: "The government itself exercised its royal prerogative on May 13 to bring this session to an end on May 12. The publication has been made of the Governor General's proclamation declaring the session at an end. He started it again. It was the government's decision to do it. It cannot have it both ways and now bring one of these motions to trample on the rights of this House and in effect prevent us from debating these bills".

Further on, he said: "The government wants to impose a new definition of democracy on Canadians, one of the greatest affronts

to the House in years. It is immoral for the government to introduce this motion. The government is short-circuiting the legislative process to consider five bills. This behaviour is reprehensible. The government knows it. He has not produced a single tittle of evidence to support this gross breach of our practice, and I suggest that it is totally inappropriate".

I hope that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will rise in this House to condemn what his government is doing with this motion. It is exactly the same thing. If it was unacceptable in 1991, it is just as unacceptable in 1996. Are there two systems of justice, two ways of proceeding, one when you are in the opposition and one when you are in the government? Is this the Liberal way of doing things?

Another good member, the hon. member for Halifax, said in 1991: "The government should be ashamed. We are wondering today why there was a prorogation". I am also wondering today. "The House leader is presenting us this pernicious motion, and I emphasize the word-it is the hon. member for Halifax, and not I, who says it-in order to speed up the passage of five bills, in total disregard for the traditions of the House and the British parliamentary procedure and in disregard for the Canadian people".

I hope that the hon. member for Halifax will rise today to condemn the actions of her government. I hope she will be here to say: "What you are doing makes no sense. I do not want to go back on what I said; what I thought was unacceptable in 1991 I find wrong in 1996". I hope that she will rise to make that point.

The hon. member for Saint-Léonard is another member who was in the opposition in 1991 and is in the government today. What was he saying regarding this motion? "If the government really intended to examine these bills, it should have done it before the prorogation of the House and that should have been negotiated." You know, things that can be negotiated before proroguing the House.

Did the government ask us anything to speed up things? No, it can do anything when in power. It can do anything. That at least is what I am led to conclude today.

I see an hon. member, and I will come back to him, because he also made an excellent plea in 1991. Before I do that, I want to mention another member who is now a senator; he was then the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.

[Federal-Provincial Relations, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister believe for one moment that his timid constitutional proposals can meet Quebecers' expectations, when the Charlottetown accord-whose content the Prime Minister is obviously trying to water down in order to respond and make his proposals acceptable to the rest of Canada-was rejected by a majority of Canadians and Quebecers?